Please note: we have been online over ten years, and we want The Trek BBS to continue as a free site. But if you block our ads we are at risk.Please consider unblocking ads for this site - every ad you view counts and helps us pay for the bandwidth that you are using. Thank you for your understanding.

Welcome! The Trek BBS is the number one place to chat about Star Trek with like-minded fans. Please login to see our full range of forums as well as the ability to send and receive private messages, track your favourite topics and of course join in the discussions.

If you are a new visitor, join us for free. If you are an existing member please login below. Note: for members who joined under our old messageboard system, please login with your display name not your login name.

The whole premise of MOS was that this was a gritty, realistic world before Superman showed up. There was no room for Superman in the Batman stories that Nolan told, but now that they've been told, the alien has arrived and the world has changed.

You could just as easily say that there was no room for Thor and an alien invasion in Iron Man's universe...but it happened.

Yeah, you can have an escalation of superhero elements within the Nolanverse, but they'll probably introduce a new Batman and establish that Man of Steel isn't in the same universe as Nolan's Batman trilogy as that would give them the freedom to do whatever they want with future Batman movies in terms of the Joker and so forth.

Right...Superman didn't single-handedly destroy the world engine over the Indian Ocean...

He did, but he was following Jor-El's instructions while the rest of the team was in Metropolis attacking Zod's command ship. They were the ones who actually defeated everyone but Zod.

he didn't stop Zod...

He did, but only after the primary threat had been defeated by the heroism of Hardy and Hamilton. And he let Zod define the terms of how the fight would end, rather than thinking for himself and finding a better way.

he didn't provide the ship that the military used to take care of Zod's ship...

Technically Jor-El provided the ship. Superman just delivered it, following Jor-El's instructions as relayed to him and the military by Lois. If a scientist develops a cure for a dread disease and delivers it to the hospital by courier, that doesn't mean the courier deserves credit for curing the disease.

nor did he provide the key with the AI of Jor-El, who's been dead for 33 years.

Again, just making a delivery as per Jor-El's instructions.

And yeah, Jor-El was technically dead, which just makes it all the more ridiculous that he was more proactive in shaping the events of the story than Superman was.

^Way to minimalize the fact that the entire story revolved around Superman and the things that he brought to the table...just because they didn't portray Superman as some master planner who didn't need anyone getting in his way on his first outing....

Out Of My Vulcan Mind wrote:

Yeah, you can have an escalation of superhero elements within the Nolanverse, but they'll probably introduce a new Batman and establish that Man of Steel isn't in the same universe as Nolan's Batman trilogy as that would give them the freedom to do whatever they want with future Batman movies in terms of the Joker and so forth.

They shouldn't touch the Joker so soon, and there's no need to, if they're not doing another Batman series.

trekkiebaggio wrote:

That bit does not encourage me.

Nor me...I don't want to see a fanwankish Batman beats Superman scenario onscreen...I want to see them work together.

^They shouldn't touch the Joker so soon, and there's no need to, if they're not doing another Batman series.

There'll likely be new Batman solo movies that spin out of this and Justice League. The prospect of a free hand with the Joker and other Batman elements down the line may lead them to establish that this is a new non-Nolanverse Batman. 2018 or 2019 may well be the earliest we'd see a new solo Batman movie.

Nor me...I don't want to see a fanwankish Batman beats Superman scenario onscreen...I want to see them work together.

My guess is they'll have the relationship start out antagonistic and then have them become allies by the end of the movie.

I would love it if the film featured the John Blake Batman and was thus a sequel to both The Dark Knight Rises and Man of Steel.

So would I. Even if that were to happen, would general audiences ever buy someone other than Bruce Wayne as Batman? Which is why I don't think I'll ever see a live-action Batman Beyond film.

I'd like to think audiences could accept a non-Bruce Wayne Batman. Heck, the most recent film showed Bruce Wayne handing off the mask to someone else.

On the other hand, Warners almost certainly wants Bruce Wayne in a Superman/Batman film because 1) this is the first time such a film has happened and 2) Bruce Wayne is who everyone on the street knows.

I'll be very curious if Warners tries to get Bale back (and for how much), even if it's just for a one-off film.

__________________
"When David Marcus cited the great thinkers of history -- "Newton, Einstein, Surak" -- Newt Gingrich did not make his list." -- 24 January 2012

Yeah guys, let's have a John Blake film! Then he can horrifically die in the first 17 minutes, as we discover that an inexperienced police officer is actually less adept at stealthy acrobatics and the martial arts than a former member of the League of Shadows.

^Yeah, Blake could use a mentor who could teach him Batman's old tricks...somebody like...Bruce Wayne! Just because he's given up the role doesn't mean he has to sit at cafes in Europe for the rest of his life.

Out Of My Vulcan Mind wrote:

My guess is they'll have the relationship start out antagonistic and then have them become allies by the end of the movie.

That's fine and how they should do it, but the Miller quote suggests something more extreme. Batman can prove he's cunning enough to be a threat to Superman, but I don't think one guy putting his boot on the other's throat would be conducive to their developing mutual respect. Such a long-awaited team-up on film should strive not to make one character look good at the expense of the other.

That's fine and how they should do it, but the Miller quote suggests something more extreme. Batman can prove he's cunning enough to be a threat to Superman, but I don't think one guy putting his boot on the other's throat would be conducive to their developing mutual respect. Such a long-awaited team-up on film should strive not to make one character look good at the expense of the other.

This will be a Superman movie with Batman playing a part in it rather than the other way around, so I don't think Superman will be made to look bad in it.

What I read said that they are using The Dark Knight Returns as inspiration, which is troubling, because TDKR's version of Superman was very unflattering to the character, and its version of Batman was meant to be an extreme, dystopian exaggeration. It's totally the wrong work to look to as inspiration for the first Superman-Batman meeting; it's the story of two old allies who've become rivals and come to resent what they see as each other's betrayal.

The Dark Knight Returns will probably be an inspiration to the same extent that Batman: Year One and The Long Halloween were inspirations for Batman Begins - in other words a very loose inspiration. I take it to mean that for some part of the story Superman and Batman will be antagonists and that there'll be an epic battle between them. No more than that.

Considering we're just coming off of a complete Batman trilogy, it's the right approach. Keep things moving, don't clutter things up by doing unnecessary set-up films. Everyone gets who the guy dressed up as a bat is supposed to be, whatever the exact continuity details.

Could I dare to hope that they do something different with the costume...something that can't stand up by itself?